Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Feinberg's own taxonomy in 'Offense to Others' concedes that pure offense, unlike harm, cannot justify criminalization without independent normative scaffolding Mill rejects.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's taxonomy may support criminalization of serious offense without external scaffolding via his own offense principle's weightings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill himself appealed to social utility and custom—implicit normative frameworks—so the distinction between independent and dependent justification blurs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some offensive conduct (hate speech, harassment) may cause cognizable psychological harm that bridges offense-harm distinction, not requiring extra scaffolding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg distinguishes offense from harm by degree, not kind, making pure offense categorically weaker as criminalization justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's harm principle requires tangible setback to interests; offense alone lacks this threshold, needing additional normative grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without independent principles (dignity, decency norms), offense becomes subjective and circular, unable to constrain state power independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.